‘(1) Schedule 3 to the Police Reform Act 2002 (handling of complaints and conduct matters etc) is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph 4 (reference of complaints to the Commission), in sub-paragraph (7), in the words before paragraph (a), after “occasion” insert “, or that has been treated as having been so referred by virtue of paragraph 4A”.
(3) After paragraph 4 insert—
“Power of Commission to treat complaint as having been referred
4A (1) The Commission may treat a complaint that comes to its attention otherwise than by having been referred to it under paragraph 4 as having been so referred.
(2) Where the Commission treats a complaint as having been referred to it—
(a) paragraphs 2 and 4 do not apply, or cease to apply, in relation to the complaint except to the extent provided for by paragraph 4(7), and
(b) paragraphs 5, 6, 6A, 15 and 25 apply in relation to the complaint as if it had been referred to the Commission by the appropriate authority under paragraph 4.
(3) The Commission must notify the following that it is treating a complaint as having been referred to it—
(a) the appropriate authority;
(b) the complainant;
(c) except in a case where it appears to the Commission that to do so might prejudice an investigation of the complaint (whether an existing investigation or a possible future one), the person complained against (if any).
(4) Where an appropriate authority receives a notification under sub-paragraph (3) in respect of a complaint and the complaint has not yet been recorded, the appropriate authority must record the complaint.”
(4) In paragraph 11 (recording etc of conduct matters otherwise than where conduct matters arise in civil proceedings), omit sub-paragraph (5).
(5) In paragraph 13 (reference of conduct matters to the Commission), in sub-paragraph (7), in the words before paragraph (a), after “occasion” insert “, or that has been treated as having been so referred by virtue of paragraph 13A”.
(6) After paragraph 13 insert—
“Power of Commission to treat conduct matter as having been referred
13A (1) The Commission may treat a conduct matter that comes to its attention otherwise than by having been referred to it under paragraph 13 as having been so referred.
(2) Where the Commission treats a conduct matter as having been referred to it—
(a) paragraphs 10, 11 and 13 do not apply, or cease to apply, in relation to the matter except to the extent provided for by paragraph 13(7), and
(b) paragraphs 14 and 15 apply in relation to the matter as if it had been referred to the Commission by the appropriate authority under paragraph 13.
(3) The Commission must notify the following that it is treating a conduct matter as having been referred to it—
(a) the appropriate authority;
(b) except in a case where it appears to the Commission that to do so might prejudice an investigation of the matter (whether an existing investigation or a possible future one), the person to whose conduct the matter relates.
(4) Where an appropriate authority receives a notification under sub-paragraph (3) in respect of a conduct matter and the matter has not yet been recorded, the appropriate authority must record the matter.”
(7) In paragraph 14A (duty to record DSI matters), omit sub-paragraph (2).
(8) In paragraph 14C (reference of DSI matters to the Commission), in sub-paragraph (3), after “occasion” insert “, or that has been treated as having been so referred by virtue of paragraph 14CA,”.
(9) After paragraph 14C insert—
“Power of Commission to treat DSI matter as having been referred
14CA (1) The Commission may treat a DSI matter that comes to its attention otherwise than by having been referred to it under paragraph 14C as having been so referred.
(2) Where the Commission treats a DSI matter as having been referred to it—
(a) paragraphs 14A and 14C do not apply, or cease to apply, in relation to the matter except to the extent provided for by paragraph 14C(3), and
(b) paragraphs 14D and 15 apply in relation to the matter as if it had been referred to the Commission by the appropriate authority under paragraph 14C.
(3) The Commission must notify the appropriate authority that it is treating a DSI matter as having been referred to it.
(4) Where an appropriate authority receives a notification under sub-paragraph (3) in respect of a DSI matter and the matter has not yet been recorded, the appropriate authority must record the matter.”
(10) In section 29 of the Police Reform Act 2002 (interpretation of Part 2 of that Act), in subsection (1), in paragraph (a) of the definition of “recordable conduct matter”, for “or 11” substitute “, 11 or 13A”.” —(Karen Bradley.)
This new clause is intended to take the place of clause 14. The amendments of Schedule 3 to the Police Reform Act 2002 in the new clause are aimed at giving the IPCC the ability to consider whether or not it is necessary for a complaint, conduct matter or DSI matter to   be investigated and, if so, to determine what form the investigation should take, as soon as the IPCC becomes aware of the complaint or matter.

(1) The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 61(5A) (fingerprinting of person arrested for a recordable offence) —
(a) in paragraph (a) omit “in the case of a person who is on bail,”, and
(b) in paragraph (b) omit “in any case,”.
(3) In section 63(3ZA) (taking of non-intimate sample from person arrested for a recordable offence)—
(a) in paragraph (a) omit “in the case of a person who is on bail,”, and
(b) in paragraph (b) omit “in any case,”.” —
Sections 61(5A) and 63(3ZA) of PACE allow fingerprints and samples to be taken from persons released on bail. Because of changes in the Bill, persons will be released without bail (rather than on bail) unless pre-conditions are met. The amendments change those sections so they cover persons released without bail too.

(1) Section 24A of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (arrest for failure to comply with conditions attached to conditional caution) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (2) for paragraphs (b) and (c) substitute—
“(b) released without charge and without bail (with or without any variation in the conditions attached to the caution) unless paragraph (c)(i) and (ii) applies, or
(c) released without charge and on bail if—
(i) the release is to enable a decision to be made as to whether the person should be charged with the offence, and
(ii) the pre-conditions for bail are satisfied.”
(3) In subsections (3)(a) and (4) for “subsection (2)(b)” substitute “subsection (2)(c)”.
(4) After subsection (8) insert—
(8A) In subsection (2) the reference to the pre-conditions for bail is to be read in accordance with section 50A of the 1984 Act.””—
This new clause changes the provisions in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 relating to persons who are arrested because they are believed to have  failed to comply with conditions attached to a conditional caution. To reflect the changes made in the Bill, those persons will be released without bail (rather than on bail) unless pre-conditions are met.

(1) The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 34 (limitations on police detention) after subsection (5A) (inserted by section 42 of this Act) insert—
(5B) Subsection (5C) applies where—
(a) a person is released under subsection (5), and
(b) the custody officer determines that—
(i) there is not sufficient evidence to charge the person with an offence, or
(ii) there is sufficient evidence to charge the person with an offence but the person should not be charged with an offence or given a caution in respect of an offence.
(5C) The custody officer must give the person notice in writing that the person is not to be prosecuted.
(5D) Subsection (5C) does not prevent the prosecution of the person for an offence if new evidence comes to light after the notice was given.
(5E) In this Part “caution” includes—
(a) a conditional caution within the meaning of Part 3 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003;
(b) a youth conditional caution within the meaning of Chapter 1 of Part 4 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998;
(c) a youth caution under section 66ZA of that Act.”
(3) Section 37 (duties of custody officer before charge) is amended as follows.
(4) After subsection (6) insert——
(6A) Subsection (6B) applies where—
(a) a person is released under subsection (2), and
(b) the custody officer determines that—
(i) there is not sufficient evidence to charge the person with an offence, or
(ii) there is sufficient evidence to charge the person with an offence but the person should not be charged with an offence or given a caution in respect of an offence.
(6B) The custody officer must give the person notice in writing that the person is not to be prosecuted.
(6C) Subsection (6B) does not prevent the prosecution of the person for an offence if new evidence comes to light after the notice was given.”
(5) After subsection (8) insert—
(8ZA) Where—
(a) a person is released under subsection (7)(b) or (c), and
(b) the custody officer makes a determination as mentioned in subsection (6A)(b),
subsections (6B) and (6C) apply.”
(6) Section 37B (consultation with Director of Public Prosecutions) is amended as follows.
(7) After subsection (5) insert—
(5A) Subsection (5) does not prevent the prosecution of the person for an offence if new evidence comes to light after the notice was given.”
(8) Omit subsection (9).
(9) In section 37CA (release following arrest for breach of bail) after subsection (4) insert——
(5) Subsection (6) applies where—
(a) a person is released under subsection (2), and
(b) a custody officer determines that—
(i) there is not sufficient evidence to charge the person with an offence, or
(ii) there is sufficient evidence to charge the person with an offence but the person should not be charged with an offence or given a caution in respect of an offence.
(6) The custody officer must give the person notice in writing that the person is not to be prosecuted.
(7) Subsection (6) does not prevent the prosecution of the person for an offence if new evidence comes to light after the notice was given.”
(10) In section 24B(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (application of provisions of Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984)—
(a) in paragraph (d) for “(5)” substitute “(5E)”, and
(b) in paragraph (f) for “(6)” substitute “(6C)”.”—
This new clause requires a custody officer to notify a person released under section 34(5), 37(2) or (7)(b) or (c) or 37CA(2) of PACE if it is decided not to prosecute. So the person is put in the same position as a person released under section 37(7)(a) (who is notified under section 37B(5)).

“Duty to notify person released under any of sections 41 to 44 of PACE that not to be prosecuted

(1) The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 41 (limits on period of detention without charge) after subsection (9) insert—
(10) Subsection (11) applies where—
(a) a person is released under subsection (7), and
(b) a custody officer determines that—
(i) there is not sufficient evidence to charge the person with an offence, or
(ii) there is sufficient evidence to charge the person with an offence but the person should not be charged with an offence or given a caution in respect of an offence.
(11) The custody officer must give the person notice in writing that the person is not to be prosecuted.
(12) Subsection (11) does not prevent the prosecution of the person for an offence if new evidence comes to light after the notice was given.”
(3) In section 42 (authorisation of continued detention) after subsection (11) insert—
(12) Subsection (13) applies where—
(a) a person is released under subsection (10), and
(b) a custody officer determines that—
(i) there is not sufficient evidence to charge the person with an offence, or
(ii) there is sufficient evidence to charge the person with an offence but the person should not be charged with an offence or given a caution in respect of an offence.
(13) The custody officer must give the person notice in writing that the person is not to be prosecuted.
(14) Subsection (13) does not prevent the prosecution of the person for an offence if new evidence comes to light after the notice was given.”
(4) In section 43 (warrants of further detention) after subsection (19) insert——
(20) Subsection (21) applies where—
(a) a person is released under subsection (15) or (18), and
(b) a custody officer determines that—
(i) there is not sufficient evidence to charge the person with an offence, or
(ii) there is sufficient evidence to charge the person with an offence but the person should not be charged with an offence or given a caution in respect of an offence.
(21) The custody officer must give the person notice in writing that the person is not to be prosecuted.
(22) Subsection (21) does not prevent the prosecution of the person for an offence if new evidence comes to light after the notice was given.”
(5) In section 44 (extension of warrants of further detention) after subsection (8) insert——
(9) Subsection (10) applies where—
(a) a person is released under subsection (7), and
(b) a custody officer determines that—
(i) there is not sufficient evidence to charge the person with an offence, or
(ii) there is sufficient evidence to charge the person with an offence but the person should not be charged with an offence or given a caution in respect of an offence.
(10) The custody officer must give the person notice in writing that the person is not to be prosecuted.
(11) Subsection (10) does not prevent the prosecution of the person for an offence if new evidence comes to light after the notice was given.”” —
This new clause requires a custody officer to notify a person released under section 41(7), 42(10), 43(15) or (18) or 44(7) of PACE if it is decided not to prosecute. So the person is put in the same position as a person released under section 37(7)(a) (who is notified under section 37B(5)).

‘(1) In section 29 of the Police Reform Act 2002 (interpretation of Part 2), at the end insert—
“(8) References in sections 26, 26BA and 26C to England and Wales include the sea and other waters within the seaward limits of the territorial sea adjacent to England and Wales.”
(2) In section 28 of the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005 (complaints and misconduct: England and Wales), in subsection (6), at the end insert “, including the sea and other waters within the seaward limits of the territorial sea adjacent to England and Wales”.
(3) In section 41 of the Police and Justice Act 2006 (immigration and asylum enforcement functions and customs functions: complaints and misconduct), in subsection (7), at the end insert “, including the sea and other waters within the seaward limits of the territorial sea adjacent to England and Wales”.”—
Various of the statutory provisions that concern the conferral of functions on the IPCC contain territorial limitations referring to England and Wales. This new clause provides for those references to include adjacent territorial waters.

‘(1) In Schedule 3 to the Police Reform Act 2002 (handling of complaints and conduct matters etc), in Part 3 (investigations and subsequent proceedings), before paragraph 19A insert—
“Investigations by the Commission: power of seizure
19ZE (1) The powers conferred by this paragraph are exercisable by a person—
(a) who is designated under paragraph 19(2) in relation to an investigation (the “designated person”), and
(b) who is lawfully on any premises for the purposes of the investigation.
(2) The designated person may seize anything which is on the premises if the designated person has reasonable grounds for believing—
(a) that it is evidence relating to the conduct or other matter to which the investigation relates, and
(b) that it is necessary to seize it in order to prevent the evidence being concealed, lost, altered or destroyed.
(3) The designated person may require any information which is stored in any electronic form and is accessible from the premises to be produced in a form in which it can be taken away and in which it is visible and legible, or from which it can readily be produced in a visible and legible form, if the designated person has reasonable grounds for believing—
(a) that it is evidence relating to the conduct or other matter to which the investigation relates, and
(b) that it is necessary to do so in order to prevent the evidence being concealed, lost, tampered with or destroyed.
(4) The powers conferred by this paragraph do not authorise the seizure of an item which the designated person exercising the power has reasonable grounds for believing to be an item subject to legal privilege within the meaning of the 1984 Act (see section 10 of that Act).
(5) Where a designated person has the power to seize a thing or require information to be produced under this paragraph and under section 19 of the 1984 Act (by virtue of section 97(8) of the 1996 Act or paragraph 19(4)), the designated person is to be treated for all purposes as acting in exercise of the power conferred by section 19 of the 1984 Act.
(6) In this paragraph “premises” has the same meaning as in the 1984 Act (see section 23 of that Act).
Further provision about seizure under paragraph 19ZE
19ZF (1) This paragraph applies where a designated person seizes anything under paragraph 19ZE(2).
(2) The designated person must provide a notice in relation to the thing seized if requested to do so by a person showing himself—
(a) to be the occupier of the premises on which it was seized, or
(b) to have had custody or control of it immediately before the seizure.
(3) The notice must state what has been seized and the reason for its seizure.
(4) The notice must be provided within a reasonable time from the making of the request for it.
(5) In this paragraph “designated person” has the same meaning as in paragraph 19ZE.
Investigations by the Commission: power of retention
19ZG (1) This paragraph applies to anything which, for the purposes of an investigation in accordance with paragraph 19—
(a) has been seized under paragraph 19ZE(2) or taken away following a requirement imposed under paragraph 19ZE(3), or
(b) is otherwise lawfully in the possession of the Commission.
(2) Anything to which this paragraph applies may be retained by the Commission for as long as is necessary in all the circumstances, including (amongst other things) so that it may be used as evidence in criminal or disciplinary proceedings or in an inquest held under Part 1 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009.
(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2), the retention of anything to which this paragraph applies is not necessary if having a photograph or copy of the thing would suffice (and the Commission may arrange for the thing to be photographed or copied before it ceases to be retained).
Further provision about things retained under paragraph 19ZG
19ZH (1) This paragraph applies to anything which—
(a) has been seized (whether under paragraph 19ZE(2) or otherwise), and
(b) is being retained by the Commission under paragraph 19ZG.
(2) If a request for permission to be granted access to a thing to which this paragraph applies is made to the Commission by—
(a) a person who had custody or control of the thing immediately before it was seized, or
(b) someone acting on behalf of such a person,
the Commission must allow the person who made the request access to it under the supervision of a member of the Commission’s staff.
(3) Sub-paragraph (4) applies if a request for a photograph or copy of a thing to which this paragraph applies is made to the Commission by—
(a) a person who had custody or control of the thing immediately before it was seized, or
(b) someone acting on behalf of such a person.
(4) The Commission must either—
(a) allow the person who made the request access to the thing under the supervision of a member of the Commission’s staff for the purpose of photographing or copying it, or
(b) arrange for the thing to be photographed or copied.
(5) If the Commission acts under sub-paragraph (4)(b), the Commission must supply the photograph or copy to the person who made the request within a reasonable time from the making of the request.
(6) The Commission is not obliged to do anything in response to a request under sub-paragraph (2) or (3) if the Commission has reasonable grounds for believing that to do so would prejudice—
(a) any investigation being carried out in accordance with this Schedule, or
(b) any criminal or disciplinary proceedings or any inquest held under Part 1 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009.
(2) In section 21 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (access and copying), at the end insert—
“(10) The references to a constable in subsections (1) and (2) do not include a constable who has seized a thing under paragraph 19ZE of Schedule 3 to the Police Reform Act 2002.”” —
This new clause confers powers of seizure and retention on the Independent Police Complaints Commission for the purpose of investigations carried out by it under paragraph 19 of Schedule 3 to the Police Reform Act 2002. The powers are based on those conferred by sections 19, 21 and 22 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.

‘(1) Section 10 of the Police Reform Act 2002 (general functions of the Commission) is amended in accordance with subsections (2) to (4) (see also paragraph 17 of Schedule (
(2) For “Commission”, in each place (including in the heading and in provisions inserted by amendments made by this Act), substitute “Director General”.
(3) In subsection (2)—
(a) in paragraph (a), at the end insert “or other concerns raised by virtue of Part 2B (whistle-blowing)”;
(b) in paragraph (c), after “complaints” insert “or other concerns”.
(4) After subsection (5) insert—
“(5A) In carrying out functions the Director General must have regard to any advice given to the Director General by the Office (see section 10A(1)(c)).”
(5) After that section insert—
 (1) The functions of the Office are—
(a) to secure that the Office has in place appropriate arrangements for good governance and financial management,
(b) to determine and promote the strategic aims and values of the Office,
(c) to provide support and advice to the Director General in the carrying out of the Director General’s functions, and
(d) to monitor and review the carrying out of such functions.
(2) The Office also has such other functions as are conferred on it by any other enactment (whenever passed or made).
(3) The Office is to perform its functions for the general purpose of improving the way in which the Director General’s functions are carried out (including by encouraging the efficient and effective use of resources in the carrying out of those functions).
(4) In carrying out its functions the Office must in particular have regard to public confidence in the existence of suitable arrangements with respect to the matters mentioned in section 10(2) and with the operation of the arrangements that are in fact maintained with respect to those matters.
(5) The Office may do anything which appears to it to be calculated to facilitate, or is incidental or conducive to, the carrying out of its functions.
 The Director General and the Office must carry out their functions efficiently and effectively.
 (1) The Director General and the Office must jointly—
(a) prepare a strategy for the carrying out of their functions, and
(b) review the strategy (and revise it as appropriate) at least once every 12 months.
(2) The strategy must set out how the Director General and the Office propose to carry out their functions in the relevant period.
(3) The strategy must also include a plan for the use during the relevant period of resources for the carrying out of functions of the Director General and the Office.
(4) The Director General and the Office must each give effect to the strategy in carrying out their functions.
(5) The Director General and the Office must jointly publish a strategy (or revised strategy) prepared under this section (stating the time from which it takes effect).
(6) In this section “relevant period”, in relation to a strategy, means the period of time that is covered by the strategy.
 (1) The Director General and the Office must jointly prepare a code of practice dealing with the relationship between the Director General and the Office.
(2) In doing so, they must (in particular) seek to reflect the principle that the Director General is to act independently when making decisions in connection with the carrying out of the Director General’s functions.
(3) The code must include provision as to the following—
(a) how the strategy required by section 10C is to be prepared, reviewed and revised;
(b) the matters to be covered by the strategy and the periods to be covered by it from time to time;
(c) how the carrying out of functions by the Director General is to be monitored and reviewed by other members of the Office;
(d) the giving of advice to the Director General by other members of the Office in connection with the carrying out of functions by the Director General;
(e) the keeping of written records of instances where the Director General has not followed advice given by other members of the Office and the reasons for not doing so;
(f) how non-executive members of the Office are to give practical effect to the requirement imposed by subsection (2).
(4) The Code may include whatever other provision the Director General and the Office think appropriate.
(5) The Director General and the Office must jointly review the code regularly and revise it as appropriate.
(6) The Director General and the Office must each comply with the code.
(7) The Director General and the Office must jointly publish a code (or revised code) prepared under this section (stating the time from which it takes effect).”’—
This new clause provides for the Director General of the Office for Police Conduct to carry out the investigatory and other functions previously carried out by the IPCC. It provides for the Office to have governance and monitoring functions and requires the Director General and the Office to jointly prepare a strategy and code of practice governing the relationship between them and the carrying out of their respective functions.

‘After section 136B of the Mental Health Act 1983 (inserted by section 61) insert—
 (1) Where a warrant is issued under section 135(1) or (2), a constable may search the person to whom the warrant relates if the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that the person—
(a) may present a danger to himself or herself or to others, and
(b) is concealing on his or her person an item that could be used to cause physical injury to himself or herself or to others.
(2) The power to search conferred by subsection (1) may be exercised—
(a) in a case where a warrant is issued under section 135(1), at any time during the period beginning with the time when a constable enters the premises specified in the warrant and ending when the person ceases to be detained under section 135;
(b) in a case where a warrant is issued under section 135(2), at any time while the person is being removed under the authority of the warrant.
(3) Where a person is detained under section 136(2) or (4), a constable may search the person, at any time while the person is so detained, if the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that the person—
(a) may present a danger to himself or herself or to others, and
(b) is concealing on his or her person an item that could be used to cause physical injury to himself or herself or to others.
(4) The power to search conferred by subsection (1) or (3) is only a power to search to the extent that is reasonably required for the purpose of discovering the item that the constable believes the person to be concealing.
(5) The power to search conferred by subsection (1) or (3)—
(a) does not authorise a constable to require a person to remove any of his or her clothing in public other than an outer coat, jacket or gloves, but
(b) does authorise a search of a person’s mouth.
(6) A constable searching a person in the exercise of the power to search conferred by subsection (1) or (3) may seize and retain anything found, if he or she has reasonable grounds for believing that the person searched might use it to cause physical injury to himself or herself or to others.
(7) The power to search a person conferred by subsection (1) or (3) does not affect any other power to search the person.”’—
This new clause amends the Mental Health Act 1983 to enable constables to carry out searches where a warrant authorising entry to premises and the removal of a person to another place is issued under section 135(1) or (2) or where a person is detained under section 136(2) or (4). The powers to search are exercisable only where there are grounds for suspecting that the person may present a danger to himself or herself or to others. This new clause also provides for other safeguards comparable to those set out in section 32 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.

‘(1) The authority of the Secretary of State is required before a law enforcement officer exercises any of the maritime enforcement powers, in reliance on section (
(2) The Secretary of State may give authority under subsection (1) only if the State, or the relevant territory, in whose waters the powers would be exercised consents to the exercise of the powers.
(3) The authority of the Secretary of State is required before a law enforcement officer exercises any of the maritime enforcement powers, in reliance on section (
(4) The Secretary of State may give authority under subsection (3) in relation to a foreign ship only if—
(a) the home state has requested the assistance of the United Kingdom for the purpose of preventing, detecting or investigating an offence under the law of Scotland,
(b) the home state has authorised the United Kingdom to act for that purpose, or
(c) the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982 (Cmnd 8941) otherwise permits the exercise of the powers in relation to the ship.”—
Please see the explanatory statement for NC29.

Government new clause 42—Offence of breach of pre-charge bail conditions relating to travel: interpretation

Jack Dromey: All I would say is that this measure was not part of the original Bill. It is certainly true that the Home Affairs Committee has done valuable work on this matter, but ultimately it was our proposal on Second Reading that led to the Government’s welcome shift. The fact that there is cross-party support is also welcome.
If we believe that the Government have moved, we are not convinced that they have yet gone far enough. The issue of principle is simple: it should not be right that terror suspects on pre-charge police bail have previously been able to leave the country with ease to escape justice, and it is essential that the loophole is closed as a matter of urgency. The Government’s new clause would make it an offence for those suspected of terrorism to break bail conditions linked to travel.
On Second Reading, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh referred to the case of Siddhartha Dhar, who absconded while on police bail and went to Syria via Dover, as a prime example of the unacceptable loophole in the current system. In reference to what the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton said earlier, the Home Affairs Committee investigated forensically and collected evidence on this important issue. That was strongly buttressed by the compelling evidence given by the head of counter-terrorism, Mark Rowley, and Sara Thornton, the chair of the National Police Chiefs Council, when they came before this Committee. They both made it absolutely clear that they wanted to see the removal of the limitations currently obtaining, which are operational constraints.
Although we welcome the Government’s amendment and new clause, we want to ensure that in cases such as that of Siddhartha Dhar the police are able to insist on a suspect’s passports being handed over when they are in the custody suite. We should not wait to write to them after they have been released to say, “Please, would you hand over your passport?” because we risk that they may have already used the opportunity to leave the country, as Mr Dhar did. The Home Affairs Committee recommended that to the Government some considerable time ago, and we welcome that Ministers are now acting, but their proposal does not set out how exactly the police can seize travel documentation, where necessary. For example, will the police be able to accompany the suspect to wherever his or her passport is being stored? Could they prevent a suspect from leaving until documentation is brought to the station? Will the police be able to request the surrender of passports and travel documents as a condition of release from custody? What exactly does the Policing Minister envisage happening next time the police arrest a terrorist suspect who inconveniently does not have his travel documentation on him at the time of arrest? I would be grateful if the Government would set out in some detail how they see this working.

Liz Saville-Roberts: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Diolch yn fawr, Mr Cadeirydd. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. This is a probing new clause, and I do not intend to press it to a Division. None the less, I draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that policing in Wales is an anomaly in the UK. Although policing is a devolved power in Northern Ireland and Scotland, Welsh policing remains reserved to Westminster. At the same time, the Welsh police forces are unique in the UK in that they are non-devolved bodies operating within a largely devolved public services landscape.
When we were discussing the police and fire authorities earlier in Committee, I was aware that there were perhaps cost implications for the police forces in Wales that are not necessarily appreciated. We are seeing changes happening even during the progress of the Bill. It is as important to draw attention to that as much as to the principle of devolving policing.
The Welsh police forces are unique in the sense that they are required to follow the agenda of two Governments; crucially, that means that Welsh police forces operate on the basis of English priorities, such as knife crime. Some of these issues are major problems in England but less so in Wales; correspondingly, issues that are significant in Wales have a lower priority here. Thus, while there are clear and numerous benefits to devolving policing, the arguments for keeping it reserved to Westminster  appear to be comparably weak—and weakening, given that it is already devolved to Scotland and Northern Ireland.
That was, of course, reflected in the recommendations of the Silk commission, which was set up by the previous coalition Government and comprised a nominee from each of the four main parties, academics and industry experts. It received written evidence, heard oral evidence and visited every corner of Wales; it was a very broad consultation project. It heard evidence from the police themselves calling for the devolution of policing, and the report recommended as such. All four parties represented on the Silk commission recommended that policing be devolved, as has every Member of the National Assembly.
Transferring responsibility to the Welsh Government would not be a massive shift; it would in fact be a simple transfer. Relationships between Welsh forces and UK services such as the police national computer and the Serious Organised Crime Agency would continue as at present, as of course happens in Scotland. Devolution would lead to greater clarity and efficiency by uniting devolved responsibilities such as community services, drugs prevention and safety partnerships with those currently held by the UK Government. That is the nature of the devolved services and the co-operation that already has to happen between the police forces of Wales and the Welsh Government and Welsh Assembly.
We talked earlier about mental health issues. Again, the fact that we are talking about a devolved organisation—a devolved Assembly—being responsible for mental health means that what we were discussing here and the structures co-operating between the police forces and health providers here would be completely different in Wales. I wonder whether we are missing the opportunity to understand fully the implications of decisions made here for Wales and vice versa. The reality of what is happening in Wales—the changes of devolution—means that for the police to operate we need to understand that the situation is different. This call from Members of the Welsh Assembly, as well as from the police forces through the Silk commission, shows their experience, and we need to understand that here.
Let me point to practical examples of the implications. Members will be aware that police and crime commissioners exist only in Wales and England. That role does not exist in Scotland, so part of what we have been discussing today is not relevant there. I mentioned earlier the combined authorities. Much of what the Bill is concerned about is not relevant to Wales. I can only imagine, having talked to my own chief constable, that there will be implications for targets and funding. Unless we fully discuss and understand those, we could walk into a situation where Wales is different and yet these measures have had an impact.
To close, I do not intend to push this new clause to a vote but I do hope the Government will consider those issues, which have also recently arisen in the context of the Wales Bill and in a recommendation from the First Minister of Wales.

Jack Dromey: Wales is a proud nation, well served on the one hand by some excellent Labour Members of Parliament on this Committee, including my hon. Friends  the Members for Swansea East and for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney, and on the other hand by a first-class police service. Like the Policing Minister, I have seen that first hand in Wales—more recently in north Wales with David Taylor, looking at the good work being done to tackle rural crime.
In south Wales, only last weekend, together with my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East, I was looking at how the police safeguard public order at major public events, in that case a football match. I was deeply impressed by the police officers that we met—Jason, Steve and Joe—who were all doing a first-class job together with their police and crime commissioner Alun Michael. They are rooted in the community and talk about the community. That is a style of policing that has evolved over the past 20 years and is popular with the people of Britain as a whole, and Wales in particular.
So Wales is a proud nation, well served. It is right, nevertheless, that the people of Wales have a greater say over the policing of Wales. It is also right that the Welsh Assembly has the right to draw up in partnership a policing plan for Wales. That would be in partnership, on the one hand, with the four forces and their police and crime commissioners and, on the other hand, a range of statutory agencies.
Historically, Labour is the party of devolution. We do support the devolution of greater powers over policing to Wales but time and thought are necessary to get it right. I was speaking only last night with Carwyn Jones, and he has talked about a 10-year process of evolution of the arrangements in Wales and those between Wales and the rest of the UK.
Time and thought are necessary due to the sometimes complex interface with other areas in the criminal justice system and government, but they are also necessary because I do not believe that anyone is proposing that all powers be devolved to Wales. The hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd made the point that the work of the National Crime Agency on serious and organised crime would clearly not be devolved. Likewise, counter-terrorism strategy would clearly not be devolved. As an example at the extreme end, when I was in Swansea with the hon. Member for Swansea East, we talked at length about the policing of the NATO summit and how to keep safe Heads of State from all over the world. Clearly, that would not be devolved either.
It is therefore a question of working through those crucial principles at the next stages. How can the people of Wales have a greater say in their policing? How best can the Welsh Assembly have the right to draw up a policing plan for Wales, in consultation with others? Then comes a process of evolution of the existing arrangements to achieve those objectives. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her comments, including that she would not push the amendment to a vote. She has raised important and complex issues, but the amendment is not the appropriate vehicle to resolve them; they will require resolving in the next stages.
Finally, I could not let an opportunity like this go by without reminding the Committee that in Labour Wales, a Labour Administration has made a difference to policing, with 500 extra PCSOs, 200 of them in south Wales. It was a privilege to meet some of them at the weekend. They are good men and women on the ground keeping our communities safe, thanks to what a Labour Administration did.

Mike Penning: I reiterate the comments made by the shadow Policing Minister about the tone of how the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd introduced her amendments. It has been useful. The issue is enormously complicated for Wales as part of the United Kingdom. The obvious references to Scotland and Northern Ireland are difficult to add to a report, not least because they have completely independent and different criminal justice systems. There is only one police force in Scotland now, and there has been only one police force in Northern Ireland for many years.
This issue must be decided by the people of Wales. The Government have made it clear that if there is not consensus within the Silk commission’s proposals, we will not consider devolving full powers to the Government of Wales and the Welsh Assembly. I heard the hon. Lady say that there is consensus, and that is certainly true of the correspondence and conversations that I have been having. I reiterate what the shadow Police Minister said. I have visited Wales on many occasions. There are many Conservative MPs there, not least the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my right hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb). What I am trying to indicate politely is that it is not a one-party state.
PCC elections will be held in Wales imminently. They will give the people of Wales the best chance to decide what sort of policing they want in their part of the world. That is devolution, and that is democracy. Although I understand that this is a probing amendment, I am also pleased that new clause 7 will not be pressed to a vote.

Jack Dromey: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
We believe it is appropriate to charge the chief inspector of constabulary with producing reports on a regular basis, not just on the efficiency and effectiveness of policing but, crucially, on the crime and non-crime demand on police in England and Wales for the year in respect of which the report is prepared and for two and five years ahead. For example, we may disagree on how to handle cybercrime, but it is common ground across the House that it is a major and growing area of crime and a relatively new development; we must therefore always properly assess the demand on the police service before making decisions about how best to meet that demand.
To be quite frank, the problem is that things are increasingly difficult for the police. Some 18,000 police officers and some 5,000 police community support officers have gone. The thin blue line has been stretched ever thinner; ever fewer are being asked to do ever more, on four fronts in particular.
First, following scandals in recent years, there is now a great national will to do everything necessary to protect children in our society. Only last week, Simon Bailey, the chief constable who heads up the police’s multi-faceted strategy on the protection of children, said that it was already costing the police £1 billion, and that that would rise to £3 billion by 2020, such are the scale and complexity of the cases involved, both current and historic, and the investigation necessary.
Secondly, there has been an enormous increase in cybercrime. As we were rehearsing only yesterday, someone is more likely to be mugged online than in the street. Some of the major banks have estimated 20% or 30% increases in attempted crime against their customers every year. The scale of it is enormous.
Thirdly, there is the sheer scale of what is required for counter-terrorism. Last November, the Government decided not to go ahead with what would have been 22% cuts on top of 25% cuts. One reason for that decision was the strong representations, made by people like Mark Rowley and Bernard Hogan-Howe, that numbers matter, both for surge capacity in the event of a Paris-style attack and for neighbourhood policing, which was described by Peter Clarke, the former head of counter-terrorism, as the “golden thread” that runs from the local to the global. The patient building of community relationships is key to gaining intelligence; as a consequence, arrests for terrorism are now happening at the rate of almost one a day. As Bernard Hogan-Howe and Mark Rowley have said before the House, that is a consequence of good neighbourhood policing, but it is incredibly resource-intensive.
Fourthly, there is the wider problem of the police being increasingly seen as the force of last resort. In his powerful contribution this morning, my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham rightly made the point that, if there are no other agencies ready to respond, the police are the force of last resort. Sara Thornton, the chair of the National Police Chiefs Council, said recently  that the police tend to be the people who, after 5 o’clock on a Friday, can be counted on to turn out when others perhaps do not because they no longer have the resources. Classically that includes going after looked-after children.
To meet demand, the nature of the demand must be understood. Our thinking is, in part, inspired by very good work from the College of Policing. Its infographic—the Minister will be familiar with it—pointed out that, in purely policing terms, about a quarter of police time is spent dealing with crime. Some might ask what they do with the other three quarters. In counter-terrorism, for example, they are cementing good relationships with the local community, which is key to intelligence gathering. The intelligent work from the College of Policing points to the fact that much more needs to be done to understand the nature of demand. I very much hope that the Government will agree to this new clause because it is about understanding what the public needs and using that understanding to inform what is done to protect the public.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 16

Karen Bradley: I fully understand why the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd has tabled these new clauses. I believe that they have been prompted at least in part by concerns about significant digital forensics backlogs in some forces, which were highlighted by the recent Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary national child protection investigations. I thank HMIC for the work that it did. It is very important that we all understand what is happening on the ground and that there is an honest appraisal of the work that local police forces are doing, so that police and crime commissioners and others can take the necessary steps to ensure that those issues are addressed.
It almost does not need saying, but I will say it anyway: we can all agree that child sexual exploitation, whether on or offline, is an abhorrent crime and that the police and other relevant agencies must up their game to effectively respond to such crimes and safeguard vulnerable children. The shadow Minister and others have made reference to last year’s report by the Children’s Commissioner. It is worth setting out the context in which we are operating.
The Children’s Commissioner estimated that there are about 225,000 cases of child abuse a year. Of course, the vast majority of that was intra-familial abuse and, as the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd mentioned, peer-on-peer abuse—children-to-children, or young people to children abuse. Child sexual exploitation online is part of the problem, but intra-familial abuse is an enormous part of it. The national policing lead, Simon Bailey, is very clear on the work that needs to be done in schools, with social services and others, working in multi-agency safeguarding hubs, to ensure that children are protected and that we have places for people to go. For example, the Government launched the child sexual abuse whistleblowing helpline, which was one of the recommendations in the Louise Casey and Alexis Jay report on Rotherham. The report said that there needed to be a safe place for professionals to report concerns that child sexual abuse that had been reported had not been dealt with. The NSPCC runs that helpline for the Home Office, and will help to make sure that children can be protected.
I want to repeat the point I made earlier about access to online pornography. It is terrifying to me. I have met many young victims and survivors of sexual abuse and I have not yet met a single one who has not asked for  access to online pornography to be dealt with. We are dealing with young people who are sexually maturing ever younger, but whose emotional maturity is the same as it always was. We are dealing with young people who may look sexually mature and believe themselves to be sexually mature, but who emotionally are not. The impact of seeing these unreal and horrendous images online on young men is quite terrifying. The NSPCC in North Staffordshire told me that it is dealing with children as young as seven who are addicted to pornography online. We absolutely have to tackle that, and I am determined that we will.
The point made by the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd was specifically about digital forensics teams across forces in England and Wales. I want to assure her that there are digital forensics teams, and forces are working to increase their capacity and ability to examine digital devices and reduce backlogs. They are achieving this through a variety of approaches, including a combination of triage, increased resourcing, outsourcing and structural reform. Although there is still much work to do, the priority that forces have given to this issue has led to tangible successes in reducing backlogs of devices for examination.
The hon. Lady may be interested to know that all forces are now connected to the new Child Abuse Image Database—CAID—which is a national policing system that supports law enforcement agencies in pursuing child sexual exploitation offenders and seeks to safeguard the victims. I visited the Child Exploitation and Online Protection centre a few months ago and I have seen some of the work that they can do with the CAID database. It is absolutely astonishing. From an image of a child in a bathroom they are able to identify the town it might have been taken in. They are able to look at, for example, a Coke can in the background—other cola products are available—and look for the date and serial number to determine where it may have been sold. They can look for the style of electrical plugs in the background of the room. The abilities that they have at CEOP are absolutely staggering, and CAID is undoubtedly transforming the way police forces and the NCA tackle online child sexual exploitation.
CAID has contributed to the identification of more than 410 victims in the first 10 months of 2015-16, which is more than double the number in any previous year. I have been told anecdotally that this national database with millions of horrendous images on it has reduced local forces’ workload in dealing with this problem by about 80%. I pay great tribute to the incredible professionals who work on it.
CAID can be used more widely to help drive improvements in how the police investigate child sexual exploitation. For example, it is being used as part of a risk-based triage process at the scene of an arrest at a suspect’s home or other premises to determine which devices need to be seized for further investigation. This reduces the number of devices seized, and is based on a model pioneered by Cheshire police and championed by the National Police Chiefs Council lead for child abuse investigation.
Moving to new clause 20, the hon. Lady will appreciate that it is an operational matter for chief officers to determine the size, composition and deployment of their workforce. The police already have a key role and statutory duty in safeguarding children and preventing  and investigating crime. Under sections 11 and 28 of the Children Act 2004, PCCs and the chief officer of each police force in England and Wales must ensure that they have regard for the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children while discharging their functions.
Section 1(8)(h) of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 further provides:
“The police and crime commissioner must, in particular, hold the chief constable to account for the exercise of duties in relation to the safeguarding of children and the promotion of child welfare that are imposed on the chief constable by sections 10 and 11 of the Children Act 2004.”
In fulfilling these statutory duties, the chief officer and the PCC will need to work closely with local partners and agencies, but, again, I am not persuaded that we need further legislation to achieve that. Moreover, safeguarding and partnership working should be the responsibility of all police officers and civilian staff, not confined to one unit within a police force.
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for affording us the opportunity to debate this important issue. Having done so, I hope I have been able to reassure her that progress is being made on tackling online child sexual abuse.

Liz Saville-Roberts: I thank the Minister for her comments, which I appreciate, but none the less it strikes me that in my own area North Wales Police, evidently as a result of the Waterhouse inquiry and Operation Pallial, which is, of course, ongoing, felt it needed a child sexual exploitation unit. We know that child sexual abuse is not restricted to certain areas of the country. Yes, many cases—the majority of cases, possibly—are inter-familial and we have talked about peer-on-peer, but if it was felt to be significant and necessary in north Wales, and wherever the other units are, I feel strongly that it is necessary throughout all police forces. I ask the Minister to consider this again on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Lyn Brown: I do not want to repeat everything the hon. Lady has said, but I agree with much of it. Child abduction warning notices can only currently be issued with regard to children under the age of 16, or to 16 and 17 year-olds formally taken into social care under a section 31 notice. We believe that, when it comes to sexual exploitation, this is simply too narrow a definition of a child and that there are very vulnerable 16 and 17 year-olds who could be protected by a child abduction warning notice. The most recent annual statistics available shows that only 190 children aged between 16 and 17 were taken into care by their local authorities under a section 31 notice and would thus be able to be protected by a child abduction warning notice. However, a further 4,320 young people of that age are looked after by their local authorities and, as the law currently stands, they are not able to receive that form of protection. The Children’s Society report, “Old enough to know better?”, calculated that the number of 16 and 17-year-olds who live outside the family and are vulnerable to sexual exploitation is actually as high as 7,200. Whatever the exact number, there is clearly a substantial gap between the number of vulnerable 16 and 17-year-old children and the number eligible to be protected by a child abduction warning notice.
New clause 21 would deal with the problem by increasing the number of 16 and 17-year-olds who are protected by laws against child abduction and thus can be named on a child abduction warning notice. For example, subsection (2)(a) would protect those children with severe disabilities and health difficulties and subsection (2)(b) would protect those children who do not have a legal guardian or parent to care for them.
This amendment would be a really important strengthening of the law. I do not want to go into the details of individual cases, but with the Oxford, Rochdale and Rotherham grooming rings, there were allegations that 16 and 17-year-old girls were raped, among a litany of other crimes that were committed against children under the age of consent. My first job when I left university was as a residential social worker for children between the ages of 13 and 18. I saw those children moving in and out of care. They did not become suddenly less vulnerable at the age of 16 or 17. We are their guardians. We are their corporate parent and we need to ensure that we provide them with as many safeguards as we possibly can. These children need our protection and agreeing to the new clause would go some way to doing that.

Karen Bradley: We had this debate when we introduced the coercive control offence in the Serious Crime Bill in 2015. It goes back to the points that we discussed during debate on previous clauses about the need to  respect individuals’ right at 16 or 17 to leave home, marry legally and make decisions, and how best to respect that in law. I am a great believer in legislating where there is a true gap in the law—where new legislation is needed because at the moment prosecution cannot be brought.
On the offence of coercive control, my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen mentioned “The Archers”. He may well have spotted me on “Countryfile” on Sunday night, discussing exactly that point. It was very difficult; we knew that there was a problem. When I was talking about the issue at a meeting recently, I met a lady who grabbed me afterwards with tears in her eyes—a well-to-do lady, somebody whom one would perhaps not expect it to have happened to—and said, “That was me 30 years ago. All the police told me was that they had to hope he kicked my door in, because then they could get him for criminal damage.” There was no offence available that the police could use.
That is the point. Is there an offence available, and is it possible to get a prosecution? The answer goes back to the point that we were discussing earlier about digital offences. Where an offence exists, it is not a case of re-legislating or creating new offences; we should ensure that the offence is used. It will be understood by the courts and the legal system, and we need to ensure that the police understand it and use it appropriately. However, where there is no offence and protection cannot be offered, the Government want to take note and listen. I fear that on this issue, there are offences already in place. A suite of powers are available to the police and others. Therefore, although I am happy to discuss the point, I am not persuaded that at this stage, the amendment is the right approach.
The new coercive control offence, which we commenced on 29 December last year, was introduced to address a specific gap in the law and capture patterns of abuse in an intimate partner relationship. Patterns of abuse outside intimate partner relationship, which the new clause seeks to address, are already captured by harassment, the test for which is partially replicated in the proposal, and stalking offences, which can apply to patterns of abuse directed against 16 and 17-year-olds.
One question that we faced when considering the coercive control offence was how to get evidence. Much of what the hon. Member for Swansea East and the shadow Minister discussed involves gathering evidence. We have seen from stalking offences that it is perfectly possible for the police to gather evidence of persistent or repetitive behaviour to ensure prosecutions, which is what we all want.
The hon. Member for Swansea East mentioned child sexual exploitation. I hope that she has seen that we have recently consulted on the definition of child sexual exploitation, making it clear that the term applies to children under 18 and thus includes 16 and 17-year-olds. As I said, stalking and harassment also apply to 16 and 17-year-olds. The new domestic abuse offence enacted in the Serious Crime Act 2015 means that 16 or 17-year-olds in intimate partner relationships who are coerced or controlled are covered by the new criminal law. Equally, if a 16 or 17-year-old is living with a parent or other family member who seeks to control them in a way that causes them to fear violence or feel alarmed or distressed,  the domestic abuse offence offers protection. For the sake of completeness, I should say that if a young person does not live with the family member or parent concerned, existing harassment legislation will offer the same protection.
The hon. Lady discussed gangs and the approaches that they might take in terms of drug trafficking and so on. That is precisely the reason why the Government’s new ending gang violence and exploitation programme, which has replaced our ending gang and youth violence programme, is there.
The point that the hon. Lady makes about vulnerable young people being exploited by gangs, under what is known as the county line phenomenon, is something that we are determined to tackle, but it is possible to tackle it using existing legislation and offences; it does not require a new offence. For example, the Policing and Crime Act 2009 introduced a new civil tool that allows the police or a local authority to apply for an injunction against an individual to prevent gang-related violence and, from 1 June 2015, gang-related drug dealing, which we discussed during the passage of the Serious Crime Act last year.
A wide range of powers are available. I would be very happy to sit down and thrash out whether there really is a gap in the law, or whether it is merely that the existing powers are not being properly used; we need to be clear on that. I hope at this stage that the hon. Lady will withdraw her new clause.

Carolyn Harris: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 46

Kevan Jones: The new clauses are probing. This afternoon we have talked about some of the issues surrounding child exploitation. This is about the support that should be given to the victims of child exploitation. The NSPCC and the Children’s Society have been campaigning very hard to ensure that victims of sexual and physical abuse have access, as a matter of course, to therapeutic services. It is true that these things are costly—we talked about that this morning—but in my experience of talking to organisations that deal with such cases, proper, early intervention, especially with young victims, can save money in the long term, by preventing greater trauma many years later.
New clause 46 says that where police or others receive a disclosure that a child has been sexually exploited or subjected to other forms of child abuse, they should refer them to mental health services. It comes back to the question we asked this morning about whether reference to mental health services is a police function. Yes, it is, in terms of investigating the crime that was committed, but how do we then put the holistic bubble around the victim and support them? We need to ensure that the perpetrator of the abuse is taken to court and dealt with, while making sure that the individual gets the emotional and mental health support that they need. Is that naturally a police issue? Directly, no, it is not, but as the Minister said this morning, it is about how we create a link-up between the police service, the health service and other support services.
I accept that some of the services will be provided not by statutory services but by the voluntary sector. A great organisation in my constituency called the Just for Women Centre works with women who have been victims of domestic violence or of abuse. It was very interesting listening to the debate this afternoon about victims coming forward. The spike in Durham has come out of the Savile revelations, but it is not about well-known individuals; the issue in that local group is the number of people who have come forward to report family members who abused them over many years.
There has been huge concentration, nationally, on the more high-profile figures, but in local areas a lot of victims who have never come forward before have now done so and are in need of a huge amount of emotional support. This provision refers to children, but without the support given to many of the women at the Just for Women Centre in Stanley in my constituency, early abuse would have led to other problems. Talking to those individuals, we hear that their problems throughout life stem from the fact that they were abused as youngsters. I commend Durham police for their proactive approach to investigating such cases and ensuring that victims get the proper emotional support.
New clause 47 is about information sharing. It says that local policing bodies shall maintain a duty to disclose information about a child who has been a victim of sexual exploitation to the relevant mental health services. I can hear minds crunching among the civil servants in the room, saying that there are obviously problems about sharing information and so on. I accept that, but if we are to ensure that those young people do not fall through the cracks between our statutory services, some method of getting that information to the services that count needs to be put in place.
I accept that ultimately, victims cannot be forced to accept help, but it must be on offer for them. Many of the women whom I have met who have been supported by the Just for Women Centre in my constituency had years of anguish and torment, the root cause of which was not getting help and assistance when they were young. If we can put in place a system that prevents that for future generations, that early intervention could prevent a lifetime of mental health issues, relationship problems and other things. As I said, these are probing amendments to explore how we can put in place practical support for victims of sexual and physical child abuse.

Jack Dromey: Like the Policing and Fire Minister, I thank all those who have supervised our proceedings, including the Doorkeepers and Hansard, all of whom play a very important role.
I want to come straight to the heart of one thing that the Policing and Fire Minister said. The Bill has been professionally debated, with substantial common ground. Where there has not been common ground, we have disagreed not for the sake of it but in order to focus on areas in need of further probing and areas of disagreement. On the former, I welcome some of the commitments given to next-stage dialogue on issues relating to children and mental health. We will take advantage of the offers made. On the latter, there are areas of disagreement, particularly in relation to fire and volunteers. There are also areas where we hope the Government will go   further in the next stages, such as pre-trial bail. All these things have been properly rehearsed, recorded and debated in the Committee.
Finally, I thank all Committee members. The debate has been conducted in a good-humoured way throughout. I also particularly thank my fellow shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, for her prodigious efforts throughout the course of the Bill’s passage. We look forward to Report.